Nikon Film Cameras anyone?

Msmoto

OK, not exactly Nikon, but one I had in the 1960's....to supplant my two F bodies...a Canon 7 with 50mm f/2 Summicron. Absolutely loved it and found a body in nearly pristine condition...a bit of haze in the f2 Summicron, however. Only $500.... I passed. Will use my F body with one of my old lenses if I go for film.

donaldejose

Some years ago I purchased a Nikon F5 and Nikon N90s on ebay to shoot negative and slide film for nostalgia's sake. I never did shoot with them. Starting about with the 12 mp sensor (as in the D90 released in 2008) I judged digital to be better than film or slides for ordinary use; especially since the "digital darkroom" was so much easier and better than a traditional darkroom. Things have only progressed vastly more in the direction of digital's superiority since then. I don't understand people who still want to shoot film. What does it have that the digital darkroom doesn't do easier and better? And the ISO's digital cameras offer are simply astonishing to those of us who remember shooting film. I must admit the 60/40 center weighted metering system on the Nikon FTn was a great way to learn about measuring the range of light in the scene and selecting your exposure (as in the Zone system). However, you can do that with any digital body which has a manual mode (spot metering and center weighted metering still exist in all Nikon's today to my knowledge) and you don't even need it anymore since you have a histogram and LCD to immediately review your image. I think soon we will be using a lot of mirrorless EVF cameras which will show us a histogram and a "preview" image in the viewfinder before we push the shutter release. I wonder if anyone does measure each area of the image these days, determine how many f-stops exist between the highlights and the deep shadows and then manually select the "right" f-stop, shutter speed and ISO to create the image they want? I suspect practically no one these days.

vtc2002

@donaldejose To answer your first question. Shooting film (especially 35mm) does not offer anything that that is easier to do in a digital darkroom. The other part of your question has been debated since digital cameras were introduced and is still being debated. For me it is not about being easier or being better it was and continues to be about technique and the process. The vast majority of the schools that are teaching students to be professional photographers start their students out using film. I live in North Carolina and we have a magazine called Our State that in this months issue is dedicated Photography it is titled "Life in Pictures". The main article, Maximum Exposure is about the photography program at Randolph Community College. It is one of the best photography programs on the East Coast. The program director Kevin Eames states "We start everybody on film, Medium Format Black and White. No cropping. If you're a student here, you go back to the very beginning. Students in the fundamentals classes take pictures of gray cards first. Things need to be level, square, flat and true. The light needs to be right. Perfect. Then they work on depth of field. Then motion. I see contact sheet of a figure running left and right, then toward and away from the camera. To focus on I realize. You don't try to shoot the thing in motion. You shoot the thing near the thing in motion." In the article Eames talks about getting dozen upon dozen of letters from students that are working professionals with comments "Thanks to the faculty for pushing me to ingrain technique into everything I do" another student writes "making me constantly check white balance, exposure, batteries, lens choice, placement, and the list goes on" and another student "Those two years of photo hell didn't go to waste". If you are interested you can purchase a electronic version of the magazine for $1.99 at www.ourstate.com/issue/the-january-2017-issue. Duke and Savannah School of Art and Design we follow the same methodology. Can you accomplish the same the thing with a digital? I know some that would say no but if you are disciplined I would say yes. However, most people that buy a DSLR today may read the manual or read some articles on the internet or have a friend that helps them get started. Some will enroll in photography classes but not all classes are created equally. In my area the classes that are taught by camera stores and community colleges focus on digital (and that's fine). I cannot count the number of times that I have heard so many photographers say I can correct the horizon not being level, I can crop this or that out, oh this photo is under exposed or over exposed, etc. in post production. If they used proper techniques they would have more time in post production to work on editing other aspects of the image.
I rarely shoot 35mm film. Personally, I believe the DSLR (especially the 36+ MP) have surpassed the 35mm. I shoot quite a bit of Medium format film and digital and personally I like the look of film but the digital is getting closer. I shoot Large format film (4 X 5) and the images are exceptional. Why do people want to shoot film? There is no right or wrong answer but for me most of the time it is about image quality and control of the image (large format camera movements). I sure the day will come when I will stop shooting film but I hope it is not anytime soon. I know some will think I am crazy and that's OK.

PeachBlack

And some people like to drive hundred year old cars...

Yeah, I think the only reason to shoot film is to feed some sense of nostalgia. It's argued that shooting film makes you a better photographer, but I don't think so. If you're just starting out, you can buy a used 3 generations old camera and a nifty fifty for very little money and shoot thousands of photos. In the film era, the thing that really kept people back was the ability to shoot a lot, and experience is the name of the game.

As an aside, I know a TON of young photographers who will shoot the pants off of anyone on this board who know NOTHING about what we traditionally know as exposure. They know enough to read a histogram and do some exposure compensation based upon lighting conditions. The old school rules that photographers like we learned are anachronistic. You don't need to know how to repair a car to drive one and you don't need to know how to program a computer to use one.

The move away from film has allowed people to focus on the artistic elements of photography and smashed the technical barriers. I learned photography shooting with my dad and developing photos in a home darkroom. Good riddance. The more technology can help me care less about the technical aspects and focus more upon the artistic ones, the better.

donaldejose

vtc2002: I commend you for still shooting large format cameras. It takes a special type of person. However, I think teaching film is wasting the time of the students. Proper technique does not require film. It seems to me you can skip film by setting a digital camera to monochrome shoot only jpeg and allow no cropping or post processing and go through all the same exercises you described above. I understand a contact sheet prevents cropping cheating but so would comparing pixel numbers with the camera they were shot with. To follow with PeachBlack's analogy, I think it would be a waste of time to teach driving by first insisting that everyone start with a manual transmission. Rather, I think the old technology should be optional for those who desire to learn it and use it. But what do I know? I mean that sincerely. I am not running a photography program at a university so my opinion is of academic interest only. But I do side with PeachBlack on this one. I think he has the stronger argument.

PeachBlack

Ultimately it's just about taking good pictures.

donaldejose

Or having a sufficient skill set to take good pictures in whatever type of photography the client seeks? A person could self-develop a good skill set in just one genre. Perhaps photography schools have to prepare their students with comprehensive skill sets in all genres?

vtc2002

@PeachBlack My point did not come across as I intended. I agree that there are photographers that have never seen or touched a film camera and do not know these techniques that produce outstanding work. I have students that are using MF and LF film cameras and producing outstanding work as well. I am not sure if I agree that there are a TON of young photographers but I will concede there are a lot. There are also a greater number of photographers that are not capable of producing a decent image because they lack this fundamental knowledge and are frustrated.
My point was not to say that film is the only way but that it is an alternative and to express why I still shoot film that @donaldejose asked. Like Kevin Eames I have not had a single student come back and say you wasted my time or that I do not use anything that I learned from the film classes.
I am in total agreement with your last statement that "Ultimately it's about taking good pictures" except I would use the word "making". To me making implies that you have a vision of what you want to capture and you use your knowledge and skills to produce that vision. It doesn't matter if you are using a film, digital, mirrorless...camera or having an arsenal of lenses if the end result captures what you wanted to produce. I was taught you make good or great photos and it all starts with the quality of what you capture. Hard to teach a old dog new tricks.
It's good to have you back on the forum and glad that you challenge us. It is through questioning and challenge that forces us to evaluate what we are doing and why and sometimes we realize " what in the world was I thinking". I get that lesson pretty regularly from my students.

PeachBlack

So I saw this documentary the other day on Japanese traditional woodworking. Honestly, it was beautiful. They don't use any nails or glues, and yet their work lasts forever and is just incredible. Seriously, hundreds of years this stuff lasts. It brings this sense of artisanship and beauty that you rarely see in the modern world. Truly amazing.

And then you realize that they charged as much for that table as some people pay for a house. Richard Avedon used to have full-time assistants whose only job was to load film and he would shoot as many photos as I do digitally. Have you priced 120 film lately? You could buy a camera with the money it would take to buy and develop all that film.

I don't doubt that your students valued the film classes. Using antiquated things is cool. Artisanal things are cool. Taking pictures with something entirely mechanical is cool. I've whipped out a Rollei at a photoshoot a few times and inevitably everyone just gets really excited. They always want to see how the Rollei shots came out... ALWAYS.

Am I a better photographer because I can use a sync cord? I don't think so, but it does make me a COOLER photographer .

I'll admit it, the dynamic range of the D800/810 has made me pretty sloppy as far as exposure goes. Why use a light meter? I can miss by more than a stop and I'm still fine, and you know what? I don't care. What is more, dynamic ranges are only going to get better, and this stuff will matter less and less.

These kinds of statements just horrify photography purists. I've had some get all red-faced and seething. But you know, I still always think of my hipster Leica friend who knows everything about everything and still shoots embarrassingly crappy pictures.

And thanks for the kind words.

vtc2002

@peachblack As you have said (and others) it the person behind the camera that makes the difference.
I have never come close to shooting MF or LF number of shots that I take with my D810's. That's just crazy and borderline stupid.
I do not get offended and I realize I am a dying breed. I have been able to support my family shooting with film and digital and it has been enjoyable.
I do know a lot of the purists that would react just as you have described and I do not consider myself as a purist nor do I want to be.
For my students most it is about cost. They can buy a used MF camera and a couple of good lens for a fraction of what a digital camera would cost and can get great image quality. They have free access to our darkroom and equipment. All they have to pay for after buying the camera and lens is the film. For most of them that all changes when they graduate and get a job or open their own business.
I met a cardiologists several years ago while on a trip that had what seemed like every lens Nikon had ever made and 4 or 5 pro bodies. He knew all of the technical lingo. He asked for my business card and sent me a number of the photos he took. They were really bad. It was like he had the knowledge but did not know how to execute.

starralazn

I think there is some value in limiting your shots to a multiple of 36 at a time.
I picked up an F100 recently, because I have often felt that with digital I can just spray and pray, and each individual shot has little time and effort put into it. I often feel that after taking portraits, I haven't done enough interaction, enough composing, enough of anything. I have no illusions that film as a medium is better than digital, but I think that the process is different, and maybe I can learn a bit more.
lol I'm rambling quite a bit.


A friend awhile ago recommended turning off auto review, and putting a 1/2gb sd card into the D800... probably would be a cheaper way of doing things haha.

vtc2002

@donaldejose I would agree that you could teach the techniques using digital, mirrorless, pin hole, point and shoot(?), etc.. The point I was trying to make is that it is not about the equipment but having the discipline to develop the techniques or the techniques of the photographer who's style you admire and want to put your on take on it. I keep saying this but it seems to be getting lost that these techniques will help you get the best image out of the camera. Sure you can adjust things in post but somethings you can't or it looks like you tried. I don't want to spend my time sitting in front of a computer fixing things that I should have gotten right in the field. That just me and I know people will disagree and that fine, to each there own.

@PeachBlack you are right in a few years things like dynamic range, ISO, etc. will improve to the point that it will not matter.

PeachBlack

I don't know. A used D90 and a 50mm lens 1.8 lens can easily be gotten for less than $300. That's pretty cheap. I suppose you could buy a lower end MF camera and lens for less, but not much less.

The easiest way to slow down your shooting is just to turn off the autofocus. Simple. Cheap. Effective.

I'm not sure what technique means, really. My point was that advancements in technology essentially allow one to focus on artistic elements, right? If you can focus just on composition and lighting, rather than being distracted getting the thing to work, then you're ahead.

As for spending time in front of the computer, well, if you're on top of shooting manual, reading a histogram, and using exposure compensation, that's pretty much all you need 99% of the time. (On a personal note, I like retouching just as much as shooting. It's totally a creative process if you allow it to be, but that's just me. If you hate it, cool.)

Nothing will EVER replace the human element. The computer inside of your digital camera is dumb and no artist. It will expose based upon various metrics that may or may have anything to do with what you were wanting. Knowing how to use light isn't a function of film or digital, or even knowing basic rules, really.

Neither is the ability to look at a scene and know how to shoot it to get the look that you have in your head. This is something that comes from experience and thinking about photography. It's about developing and artistic sense much more than anything else. To once again rail on my Leica friend (nice guy, terrible photographer, hope he doesn't read this), he knows all about the HOW. He's clueless about the WHEN and the WHY.

That develops almost independently of the kind of camera you use.

Ironheart

I think the point is 1) you have to get it "mostly right" in camera, even though the latitude may have increased with digital. I still remember pulling things out of the shadows using polycontrast filters and special paper. This formula is the same today, the more right in camera, the less time in the darkroom/lightroom.

When I was doing more active shooting, my attitude was pretty much the same. I knew how much I could push/pull doge/burn in my darkroom, so I would spend a little less time getting the exposure "exactly" right, but close enough. If I really blew it, I might be spending hours in the darkroom trying to save a crappy negative. In those days it was pretty much all event work, so only one chance to get it right.

What will happen in the future is that the need for ISO adjustment will be zero as you will get essentially a bracketed set of exposures all done at the same time. You may be setting an ISO range, like high-medium-low and you will get a 20-stop virtual RAW file that will let you tone away. But by then we may have 16-bit displays everywhere and people will just expect that everything looks like it does in the real-word, at least from a DR perspective. We will chuckle at the "low DR" images from the old-days that only had 8-10 stops of light latitude and wonder how anyone ever took a decent photo.

And there will still be people shooting film. And riding horses...

vtc2002

@pitchblack I think I need to go to back to school as my communication skills stink.
I enjoy post processing except when I know that I am correcting something that I should have taken the time to get it right when I took the shot. To me that is wasted time that I could be out shooting or scouting.
I believe we are saying the same thing. I am not disagreeing with you or @donaldejose

donaldejose

vtc2002: your communication skills don't stink. We are all just commenting on different aspects and considerations of the same issues and we have different preferences. It can be valuable for a reader to consider whether they should pick up film to learn basic skills or try digital monochrome to learn those skills or skip that step and jump right into practicing and learning the skills more specific to the type of photography they want to do. You argue cogently for the first, I suggested the second and PeachBlack argued cogently for the third. In the end each one is a valid choice for different reasons. It was very interesting to have this discussion. Such discussions are one of the valuable parts of belonging to this forum. As for me, even though I find large format camera very enchanting, I know that I am never going to take the time to actually use one or any type of film camera. It is great that you do. I know a guy who insists upon shooting black and white film in a Leica M3. Fine for him but I sure don't see the point.

DaveyJ

Symphotics Minolta Name meaning is indeed the primary meaning of Minolta! The secondary meaning was from correspondence with Minolta in the SRT 101 era....the Ripening Fields of Grain is another way they thought of their name. That was straight from Minolta! My brother's daughter taught English in Tokyo and agrees with the Minolta naming and researched that for me. Her assurance for the acronym Symphotics states was indeed our first name meaning and as DaveyJ frequently does the rest of the story takes on a life of its own....

History is rift with such a name changes and plays on words to,represent a designer or a companies thought plane! Good example the Snake River in the west (longest tributary to the biggest river Columbia) which drains into the Pacific was actually the Salmon or Steelhead...Rainbow Trout....misinterpreted from an Indian Handsign. Very old women who,were alive during the Lewis,and Clark expedition argued that eloquently on reel to reel tape recordings done years ago! And yet the River today bears the name Snake......which these actual residents took great exception to....eye witness and recorded verbal accounts were swept aside to perpetuate a mistake in sign language! This Minolta name authenticity unfortunately may be lost to future generations because someone claims it as not intended. I was using Minolta cameras before almost anyone here, and owned more of them than most other Nikon Rumors members I would, have but just like a magestic River name......mistaken years ago,is sadly lost on today's disposable society. The Minolta Name is granted a lot different than the river name change. Minolta themselves thought the Ripening Fields of Grain was far more.....abstract.

DaveyJ

It was for ripening fields of rice grain! In fact example Japanese photos showing that classic and lovely look were sent to me. I spent hours trying to find them.....but could not. I am in the farming business.....where such lengthy pursuits which do not produce results are "crop failure". It is 7:30 pm here and I have to get back to farm work. I feel like I I have failed Japanese Farmers and the artists who greatly appreciated the beauty of these fields to submit proof of my Minolta Name Claim! Where I deviated from the whole truth and nothing but the truth is the primary Minolta Name meaning was by myself never mentioned at all. I still have quite a sample of the Minolta camera evolution. After the XE-7 my interest in Minolta dropped off. They were very good about answering letters back then!

DaveyJ

A comment about vtc2002: This is not going to be popular! The cost of film cameras etc, to college students is quite poorly defined. Add the cost of the college education, etc....I know kids who,never spent a day in college who,are making a living as pro photographers and editors. I had a fleet of large and medium format gear! The craft of the darkroom, etc., usually pulls the attention...the conclusions and all in between as being "necessary"when in fact the image and the real scene probably are what really counts. Photos of Sabertooth Tigers would be the target....not how to develop the images. Today's people are not as capable as a caveman. Not as versatile or self reliant.

I sincerely regret some of the wasted years with the big film cameras. Certainly the money spent. But the biggest loss in anyone's life is probably time. And the big film cameras are time wasters. Willam Henry Jackson I greatly admire. But to send students through this knothole....is about like teaching forestry students horse logging. Since I grew up,in a family that did that real thing....to see it taught in college was sickening! I taught long enough in
High School, and University to know....that just because you got no negative feedback from students, doesn't mean those thoughts did not exist, then too what about the kids from families who go to work, the military, or to labor?

We are in an age when things get kicked to,the curb pretty fast. I do not see film and camera movements, and darkroom as the necessary path. Fact is..Dark rooms are pretty questionable chemically. Still I do think instruction is nice, but some of today strikes me as luxury.

vtc2002

@DaveyJ The students have to pay the tuition regardless so I excluded it from my comment. As I replied to Peachblack you are correct there are young and old photographers who never spent a day in college that are making a living as a pro photographer and may have never touched a film camera. My comment was never intended to imply that it's all about the technique and nothing to do with the image. That would make absolutely no sense what so ever.
I am sorry that you feel that shooting film was a waste of time and money and I am not trying to convince you that it is not. I do not regret shooting with film in the past or now. That's me and not trying to convince anyone to take it up. I wonder in 10 or 20 years if photographers will be having the same discussion about DSLR's or Full frame cameras if mirrorless and MF mirrorless changes the market. I have always valued time and it more meaningful to me now after what happened to me in November. Our definition of wasted time is probably different as it should be.
I do not think I said I had never received a negative comment and I was quoting from the article the comments that Kevin Eames had received. I would be the first to admit that we hear a lot especially in the beginning. I value the negative comments as much if not more than the positive. The negative comments open a opportunity for discussion an dialogue that might not happen otherwise and often leads to learning or to some degree of understanding for both sides.

donaldejose

DavyJ: "This is not going to be popular!" On contrary, not only is skipping film altogether, and even skipping digital black and white, popular but certainly must be the norm almost everywhere on earth these days. I would think teaching film in college is about as relevant as many things taught "in the ivory tower" where interesting intellectual experiences trump learning and developing real world practical expertise. We all love, admire and sympathize with vtc2002. I am sure he is a great teacher. BUT, does someone graduating from his photography courses know how to establish and run a wedding photography business? Does he teach the checklist a photographer should go over with the bride and groom (or parent who is paying the bill) before the event so he knows which shots they are going to find important? Does he teach the difference between a standard American wedding, an Indian wedding, a Jewish wedding, and a Greek wedding so upon graduation the students know what will be happening at each of those events, the most important moments to capture for that culture, and how to price each of them according to their differences? I don't know. Maybe he does teach all those practical things. I would also add that there is a big difference between someone wanting to go to college or art school to learn photography and someone who wants to jump right into earning money shooting weddings. The former is seeking more general knowledge and esoteric discussion. He or she want to create "Art" not just earn money. The latter is seeking paying competence ASAP, intellectual discussions be damned. Colleges and art schools serve the former. Seminars, books, youtube and second shooter experience serve the latter. I am glad vtc2002 explained how he and others go about teaching basic skills by sending "students through this knothole." You have often heard "different horses for different courses." Well, perhaps this is "different courses for different horses."

vtc2002

@donaldejose and @DaveyJ The article Kevin Eames talks about some of the things donaldejose mentions such as having staged weddings and one year two of his students decided to get married and several students served as their photographers and the others were part of the wedding quests. At Duke we stage weddings (of different faiths). We use the Duke Chapel because it presents a lighting challenge and we stage weddings outdoors in the Sarah P Duke Gardens. We will stage press events, corporate headshots, executive portraits, etc. We do medical images, landscapes of the campus for publications. We review the photos in class and I think it helps them to get constructive criticism from their classmates. We will also bring in professional photographers to review the students work as well. To go through what the flow of a wedding and know what images they can capture helps them when talking to Bride and Groom and the most important person the Brides Mother. They can offer ideas and suggestions that they couple had not thought of or if they ask for certain shots know what equipment they need to bring.
Most of the students come in with a specific genre of photography that they want to do after they graduate, many of them either change or decide to add to their original idea. I think a lot of times getting a student to try a genre that is out of their comfort zone they discover that their fears were not as bad as they thought.

donaldejose

Wonderful! I had no idea you did such a great job with your students. I stand corrected, thanks.

vtc2002

@donaldejose Sorry it wasn't meant to correct you but to provide more information about our program and how Kevin and others prepare students to make a living as a photographer.
Interesting fact about Randolph CC photography program. It started back in the 60's because at that time the Greensboro/High Point area of North Carolina held the distinction of the most photographs taken per day for more than a decade. This was because that region was and continues to hold the largest Furniture Market in the US. All of the Furniture Manufacturers needed photos for their brochures and advertisements. Not sure what holds that record now.

donaldejose

I don't mind being corrected and welcome it because I don't want to spout false information. I am glad to hear your part of "the ivory tower" is so practical! You run a great program.